|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 5.000 gp for the raise dead are part of the consumable. Like the 100 or 1.000 gp for the restorations and the material components for other costly spells.
Your wizard feel that he is reducing his WBL every time he cast stoneskin?
A well organized party generally would have a found for restorations, resurrections, casting of commune and other spells with costly components that benefit the whole group.
You count the charges of a wand of CLW that was found in a dungeon and used during the adventure as part of the loot, paid by the guys that benefited from it? Or you consider it a party expense?
Sure, almost certainly the fighter was healed for more hp than the wizard, but he was protecting the wizard or the other squishy characters, so it is best to consider it a party expense, at least in my experience.
Mechanics and roleplay go hand in hand.
About the compensate thing: you compensate for used consumables? The loot tables already consider that a percentage of what you get will be consumed so you normally get more than what is needed for your WLB.
If you feel that you should replace all that the party consume and keep them at WBL no matter what, please reply to the question I have asked a lot of times and that was never answered in a satisfying way:
- 15% of the WBL of Player A is in disposable items, he use them with moderation.
- 50% of player B is disposable items, he regularly buy and use potions of shield of faith at caster level 18 (+5 deflection bonus); barkskin at CL 12 (natural armor +5); elixirs giving resistance bonuses and other one shot items that boost his abilities way above what the guy with permanent items get.
Who is the stronger character?
Who benefit more from the GM increasing or decreasing the loot in proportion to the party and character WBL?
Another question:
if role playing don't matter in this discussion but what matter are only the mechanics, what mechanic prohibit the PC from getting out of town and slaughter each other till only one man stand? He/she would get the loot from the corpses and the Xp. Not a bad deal. Rinse and repeat till you feel you are strong enough to overcome the current challenges.
Sure, your alignment would shift toward evil, but that isn't a mechanical problem, it may be a role playing problem, depending on the campaign.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we are talking purely mechanics, why shouldn't the party kill 3/4 of the members, sell the loot and recruit three new players at the same WBL.
Do this each level, and you totally beat the WBL system. I can't think of anyone who would ever want to play this way, or with people who want to play this way, but in a "mechanics" discussion, why not?
So why are we discussing the mechanics in a vacuum as if there isn't an inherent incentive to the player and to the party to keep playing the character they are invested in?
Because clearly that is a thing to calculate, since in 3.5 you literally lost a level AND had the cost and "dumb" players ignored the math and still brought back dead characters.
Again, why would we further reduce the penalty for death beyond the huge nerf it already got from 3.5? I get removing the gold cost, but I think bringing back a risk element in exchange makes a lot of sense.
The difference I see with restoration is that appropriate-CR adversaries don't start handing out conditions that require restoration until the PCs have WBL that isn't decimated by paying 1,000 gp. There's a cost-free lesser version (and even a cheaper standard version) that does just fine for the hazard low-level parties tend to face.
It's like petrification. The cockatrice (CR 3) takes several attacks to petrify someone, and after that allows multiple saves to recover without anyone casting stone to flesh. The basilisk (CR 5) has an instant-petrification gaze attack -- but also has a quick-and-non-casty way to unpetrify victims without stone to flesh, assuming the party wins the encounter. It's not until the medusa (CR 7) that the party is required to use a 6th-level spell, at which point they can afford to buy it on a scroll. The game mechanics allow for the expected resources of the group, as with virtually any other condition you can name.
Now monsters at every CR level can hand out the 'dead' condition, but only high-level PCs will have the resources to remove it. Why should death be a speedbump for a "smart" 8th-level PC and the end of the game for a 3rd-level PC?
Isn't this "smart" party that's running around with 7,000 gp in their pouches and a 9th-level cleric in their group the ones who ought to be acting reckless and taking wild risks, since they have a get-out-of-death-free card in their pockets? Aren't they the ones who are trivializing death, and not the 4th-level party who is desperately rushing their fallen friend back to town and the temple without teleport or other magical conveyance? Isn't it the lower-level party that's making all the sacrifices, from abandoning their quest to selling their very necessary equipment, instead of having a separate raise fund alongside their magical weapons and armor?
I think there ought to be a lesser raise dead, perhaps not a lower-level spell like lesser restoration but maybe a 500 gp option along the lines of the two price levels of restoration. Lesser raise dead could only work on creatures with HD of 5 or less, for example. Or maybe a sliding scale that's a percentage of WBL, so that death is never "trivialized" because that 5000 gp won't do for a 17th-level character, now it's 45,000 gp to retrieve a much more valuable and powerful soul. As it stands now, returning from death is an impossibility for a low-level party and pocket change for a high-level one, even one without their own cleric.
Just to throw this out there, but what if higher level spells all had expensive material components? Instead of removing raise dead's component, what if you reduced it but also had the other spells needing expensive components? It would help balance out the casters at the higher levels since they now must dip into their wealth to cast the spells. The biggest drawback I can see is that it would become a game of inventory maintenance instead of a fun adventure game.
For me, I've never questioned the cost of the spell. We assumed that it was a tribute to the powers-that-be and that was the only way the gods would allow the soul to be released back to the body. However, this is flavor, not mechanics.
The only mechanics reason I can see is to keep raise dead from being used too often. I can see it being meant to make the players think about how to keep their characters alive instead of how to bring them back from the dead. It fails doing that but it's the only thing I can think of.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think true failure risk for certain spells would be a better way to go.
I think you want powerful spells to be possible for story purposes, but having those spells have great risk both makes sense for flavor and mechanics.
For example, a lot of the planar binding cheese goes away with a 5% "thing eats your face if you roll a 1" component.
|
I don't mind risk with high-level spells, but I have a problem when that risk is "you lose the character permanently and utterly," especially if it's possible for that penalty to be incurred by bad luck alone and not by making a bad decision. I agree that risk is the part of the game, but I don't like that particular risk. My group gets very invested in their characters and I would not want to arbitrarily deprive them of a character that they want to continue playing.
I think there ought to be a lesser raise dead, perhaps not a lower-level spell like lesser restoration but maybe a 500 gp option along the lines of the two price levels of restoration. Lesser raise dead could only work on creatures with HD of 5 or less, for example. Or maybe a sliding scale that's a percentage of WBL, so that death is never "trivialized" because that 5000 gp won't do for a 17th-level character, now it's 45,000 gp to retrieve a much more valuable and powerful soul. As it stands now, returning from death is an impossibility for a low-level party and pocket change for a high-level one, even one without their own cleric.
The above is one of the reasons story costs like quests are appealing to me - the magnitude of the quest undertaken would always be appropriate to the strength of the soul, and thus the cost has about the same impact at every level.
To avoid derailing a current adventure, the quest could be something that can be completed "soon" instead of "immediately."
I would be fine with seein the default cost/risk go to zero, with an optional rule to increase it as desired.
I love the bargain method used in Dungeon World. The GM offers you a bargain, maybe an oath to live by, or a deed to accomplish. Swear by it and you go back, refuse and you can stay dead. If you fail or ignore the bargain, Death comes looking for you. Die before you can, Death can double down on you, possibly with interest.
I like that method because it involves the action back into the story. It was probably important the character came back, but they also carry a new burden as well. I posted it in the thread in Suggestions/homebrew, I'd love to see anyone able to perform the rite to raise dead, just need something important, a holy site, scroll, magic item, etc. The downside is that you cant control what kind of outsider answers the call. A cleric who casts it can summon a representative of their deity to do the bargaining.
I like both of these ideas.
If you teleport to a different plane, are they powers that be going to say "Oh hi, yeah since you are here, go ahead and take your friends soul back with you and put it in his body."
Actually, I'm absolutely including that as an option in my next campaign, though the party will have to persuade, negotiate with, or impress the powers that be, Orpheus and Eurydice style.
|
|
But is that persuasion less easy than getting a 5k diamond?
And if that is allowed, then you just explained a way to get around a failed raise dead in your game.
What I am not cool with is death not mattering. At this point, it really doesn't have much impact at all, particularly compared to how it used to be.
Again, why would we further reduce the penalty for death beyond the huge nerf it already got from 3.5? I get removing the gold cost, but I think bringing back a risk element in exchange makes a lot of sense.
I'm not big on the risk aspect. It might be 'realistic' but it's uninteresting. A fail is exactly the same as not casting the spell, and I'd assume you're putting a notation that once you fail a check you can never benefit from Raise Dead again. I think mechanics should always lead to interesting results, where this is really just an all or nothing gamble, but nothing isn't that interesting. The roll has tension, but immediately after there's no benefit from it.
Also, I don't think we've been debating this much yet as we have to keep going back and retread previous points repeatedly (not you, but several others).
I'd rather see mechanics open up opportunities to add story elements or create story decision points.
|
|
But is that persuasion less easy than getting a 5k diamond?
It could be more or less easy than the diamond, depending on whether I decide that the cost of Raise Dead in my campaign is one 5000 gp diamond. At this point, I'm leaning towards negotiation with a deity or powerful outsider as being the baseline, with Plane Shift just giving you an alternate (slightly more complicated) way to contact that being - in this case, the negotiation will probably be similar no matter which spell you use to open lines of communication.
And if that is allowed, then you just explained a way to get around a failed raise dead in your game.
This could indeed be the last-ditch way to retrieve the dead if you're using a fail chance on Raise, an alternative to the absolute "thou shalt not play this PC" that adds to the story and requires some effort.
What I am not cool with is death not mattering. At this point, it really doesn't have much impact at all, particularly compared to how it used to be.
And that's your preference and you may have it. However, is it necessary that your preference be RAW? Could perhaps a PF supplement be released with alternate, Paizo-sanctioned options that GMs are encouraged to choose from when running this spell (with by necessity one 'default' for use in PFS)? Several players have mentioned a desire for an "Ultimate Rules" or "Ultimate Variants" supplement, and that seems like an excellent place to put higher or lower death cost or risk variants.
I'm not big on the risk aspect. It might be 'realistic' but it's uninteresting. A fail is exactly the same as not casting the spell, and I'd assume you're putting a notation that once you fail a check you can never benefit from Raise Dead again. I think mechanics should always lead to interesting results, where this is really just an all or nothing gamble, but nothing isn't that interesting. The roll has tension, but immediately after there's no benefit from it.
I agree. A single roll may be dramatic, but longer-running story elements are more interesting.
Again, why would we further reduce the penalty for death beyond the huge nerf it already got from 3.5? I get removing the gold cost, but I think bringing back a risk element in exchange makes a lot of sense.I'm not big on the risk aspect. It might be 'realistic' but it's uninteresting. A fail is exactly the same as not casting the spell, and I'd assume you're putting a notation that once you fail a check you can never benefit from Raise Dead again. I think mechanics should always lead to interesting results, where this is really just an all or nothing gamble, but nothing isn't that interesting. The roll has tension, but immediately after there's no benefit from it.
Also, I don't think we've been debating this much yet as we have to keep going back and retread previous points repeatedly (not you, but several others).
I'd rather see mechanics open up opportunities to add story elements or create story decision points.
So have "failure" equal something besides just dead. A limited lifespan needing another casting of the spell (or a special component)... a loss of levels... a loss of Constitution. In short something this side of "He's dead Jim". Have there be a chance of finding the lost part of his soul (levels), or saving him from dying (again) in a month... there are a lot of possibilities here...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has been an interesting read.
"The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."
Page 9 core rule book.
This is one of my favorite passages of text in the core rule book. It allows us to shape the game as we would like to, and in our home games, we can adjust the game to match what we want, to fit how we want to tell our own story.
Now if people do not wish to have a 5,000 gp diamond as a materiel component for a raise dead spell.....you can remove it.
Now I will admit, the only good reason i can think of to have the 5,000 gp diamond materiel component is to keep the spell rare and expensive.
I would prefer to keep the diamond.
You could also make a lower level spell only suitable for raising creatures with low hit dice. There's some precedent for this: Creatures of 4 HD and above come back as ghasts instead ghouls, ones with 5 HD have their auras show up on Detect Evil if they're evil, etc.
And the logic of the metaphysics would be something similar: Those of 4 HD and below have not distinguished themselves particularly so the gods aren't particularly clamoring for them and it consequently takes less magic to call their soul back and give them a second chance at life.
Make it a 3rd level spell, and have it sold on scrolls for low level parties. Call it "Second Chance" or somesuch.
|
|
A tangent question for Sean only loosely related to this thread argument:
About the effect of removing special material requirement, have you recently though about the simulacrum spell?
In Pathfinder the requirement of having a piece of the creature that you want to duplicate has been removed. The effect of that is that we have people arguing that you will be capable of creating simulacra of Efreeti and other wish granting creatures and get unlimited wishes for free at level 13.
That is a perfect example, to me, of a spell where removing a special material component has broken the spell and of a mechanic reason to keep the component.
I am not sure that removing the diamond from raise dead, resurrection or true resurrection will have the same effect, but I am fairly sure that with hounded of thousand of players someone will find some nice shenanigan to share in the forum.
- * -
A possible example of a super broken item:
Bier of revivification:
this bier cast raise dead over every body placed in it.
Use activated, unlimited uses, no slot,
CL 9, spell level 5
Price 9*5*2.000*2 = 180.000 gp, production cost 90.000.
With he diamond cost: add 250.000 gp = price 430.000 gp, production cost 340.000.
Extremely broken in both versions, but the first is affordable by a 12th level character sinking almost all of his money in it, the second require most of the wheat of a level 17 character.
GM fiat will instantly ban the item in almost all games but I see a lot of posts in these boards against GM fiat.
- * -
I know, it is a doom prediction, but we are approaching the 21 and so it is appropriate.
:-P
So have "failure" equal something besides just dead. A limited lifespan needing another casting of the spell (or a special component)... a loss of levels... a loss of Constitution. In short something this side of "He's dead Jim". Have there be a chance of finding the lost part of his soul (levels), or saving him from dying (again) in a month... there are a lot of possibilities here...Again, why would we further reduce the penalty for death beyond the huge nerf it already got from 3.5? I get removing the gold cost, but I think bringing back a risk element in exchange makes a lot of sense.I'm not big on the risk aspect. It might be 'realistic' but it's uninteresting. A fail is exactly the same as not casting the spell, and I'd assume you're putting a notation that once you fail a check you can never benefit from Raise Dead again. I think mechanics should always lead to interesting results, where this is really just an all or nothing gamble, but nothing isn't that interesting. The roll has tension, but immediately after there's no benefit from it.
Also, I don't think we've been debating this much yet as we have to keep going back and retread previous points repeatedly (not you, but several others).
I'd rather see mechanics open up opportunities to add story elements or create story decision points.
I hate level loss. So you'll never get consensus from me on that one. I think it's dumb as a player and as a DM.
The Constitution loss is a downward spiral. You're just pushing the player towards making a new character.
I'm more of a mind to assign them a task that they would possibly be willing to do normally, but will have significant cost, lack reward, be dangerous or a combination of the three. I'd use it to hand out mini-adventures and sub-plots, where the reward for success is keeping your soul in your body.
Think of it from a pragmatic, good aligned outsider's perspective. He raises the hero, who is now in his debt, a debt that can be revoked at the outsider's whim. It takes him a couple minutes to show up and perform the raise, but he can have the hero do something that takes much longer. Now he can go answer someone else's call for a raise, or return to the evil he was fighting before. Plus if it's a dangerous mission, the hero or one of his allies might need another raise.
For an evil outsider, it gives you mortals you can control like puppets. And if they use them to kill more mortals, it becomes like a pyramid scheme.
If the player isn't interested in their character or the new sub-plot, they can roll a new character just like normal. If the GM feels the party could just use a little extra help, he can make the task minimal, or even forgo it.
|
|
If the player isn't interested in their character or the new sub-plot, they can roll a new character just like normal. If the GM feels the party could just use a little extra help, he can make the task minimal, or even forgo it.
That kind of variability is one of the possible problems in my eyes, Irontruth.
Let's make an example:
character A is a paladin of Iomeade that has always been faithful, go out of his way to do his duty and good deeds and is doing a mission dear to his deity. He dies and the help of a outsider servant of Iomeade is called. Request for the raise: "Go and continue your good deeds."
character B is a GG, borderline CN character that profess to follow Cayden but that really care about himself and rarely spend a drop of sweat for the freedom of others. He dies on the side of the above paladin but his stated goal was to get more money. A outsider servant of Cayden is called Request for the raise: "Go and free 1001 slaves in the next year."
Appropriate request for the situation and the deities? I think so.
Effect on the table? Almost certainly player B would raise a ruck as he would feel singled out for a hard quest (especially if the PC character reflect somewhat the player character).
When a game situation is open to extreme variations it can generate table discussions.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
A tangent question for Sean only loosely related to this thread argument:
About the effect of removing special material requirement, have you recently though about the simulacrum spell?
In Pathfinder the requirement of having a piece of the creature that you want to duplicate has been removed. The effect of that is that we have people arguing that you will be capable of creating simulacra of Efreeti and other wish granting creatures and get unlimited wishes for free at level 13.That is a perfect example, to me, of a spell where removing a special material component has broken the spell and of a mechanic reason to keep the component.
I am not sure that removing the diamond from raise dead, resurrection or true resurrection will have the same effect, but I am fairly sure that with hounded of thousand of players someone will find some nice shenanigan to share in the forum.
- * -
A possible example of a super broken item:
Bier of revivification:
this bier cast raise dead over every body placed in it.Use activated, unlimited uses, no slot,
CL 9, spell level 5
Price 9*5*2.000*2 = 180.000 gp, production cost 90.000.With he diamond cost: add 250.000 gp = price 430.000 gp, production cost 340.000.
Extremely broken in both versions, but the first is affordable by a 12th level character sinking almost all of his money in it, the second require most of the wheat of a level 17 character.
GM fiat will instantly ban the item in almost all games but I see a lot of posts in these boards against GM fiat.
- * -
I know, it is a doom prediction, but we are approaching the 21 and so it is appropriate.
:-P
For a little over half that price, you can buy a staff of life, which essentially does the same thing (free raise dead) about once a week.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate level loss. So you'll never get consensus from me on that one. I think it's dumb as a player and as a DM.The Constitution loss is a downward spiral. You're just pushing the player towards making a new character.
I'm more of a mind to assign them a task that they would possibly be willing to do normally, but will have significant cost, lack reward, be dangerous or a combination of the three. I'd use it to hand out mini-adventures and sub-plots, where the reward for success is keeping your soul in your body.
I was just tossing out possibilities. But, I find it funny that you can't get behind level loss or Constitution loss but will send them on a dangerous mission. I don't know, level loss or Con loss is bad, but death is so much more like... death :) If the dangerous mission you send them on results in death they could end up indentured pretty much forever to an outsider. And I can see an evil outsider engineering it just that way. For me, if you want to eliminate material costs there should be a significant risk of failure with the spell. If you don't want to have death as a risk it has to be something else which makes death a pain. And, losing a level is painful, losing a Con point would be painful, but both beat the tar out of dying.
And, I mentioned the possibility of a quest to "find the lost part of his soul" (his lost levels). The same could be done for Constitution loss. I.e. "My son, you need the rare 7th petal of the Highland Lotus Flower to recover. I understand the Yeti are particularly fond of it."
Think of it from a pragmatic, good aligned outsider's perspective. He raises the hero, who is now in his debt, a debt that can be revoked at the outsider's whim. It takes him a couple minutes to show up and perform the raise, but he can have the hero do something that takes much longer. Now he can go answer someone else's call for a raise, or return to the evil he was fighting before. Plus if it's a dangerous mission, the hero or one of his allies might need another raise.For an evil outsider, it gives you mortals you can control like puppets. And if they use them to kill more mortals, it becomes like a pyramid scheme.
Your "pragmatic" good outsider doesn't sound all that good. More like a loanshark. As I mentioned above, I can see evil outsiders keeping this going forever and a day. Or trying to anyway.
If the player isn't interested in their character or the new sub-plot, they can roll a new character just like normal. If the GM feels the party could just use a little extra help, he can make the task minimal, or even forgo it.
If the player (or his friends anyway), do not want the risk, they could always use the original, expensive, component and skip it... make the component optional with a risk if they don't use it. The Cleric says "The diamond isn't strictly necessary, but it helps the soul find it's way back... and without it, there are risks...". There are a lot of ways to do this and a lot of potential as well.
|
|
@SKR; you've been eloquent and passionate about your dislike of the 5000gp cost of raise dead. I have to admit there there are some things in Pathfinder that I would change if I had the power, or knew the designer of the game to persuade him to change it, or if I were one of the game designers myself, but we don't and we aren't, so we'll just have to like it or lump it.
Hey, wait a minute! You do have the power! You do know the designer of the game! You are one of the designers! Why don't you do something about it? What are you doing about it?
|
|
@SKR; you've been eloquent and passionate about your dislike of the 5000gp cost of raise dead. I have to admit there there are some things in Pathfinder that I would change if I had the power, or knew the designer of the game to persuade him to change it, or if I were one of the game designers myself, but we don't and we aren't, so we'll just have to like it or lump it.
Hey, wait a minute! You do have the power! You do know the designer of the game! You are one of the designers! Why don't you do something about it? What are you doing about it?
Why does he 'need' to do anything about it? Why cant he just leave it there for those of us who want it and just remove it in his own home game?
|
|
Why does he 'need' to do anything about it? Why cant he just leave it there for those of us who want it and just remove it in his own home game?@SKR; you've been eloquent and passionate about your dislike of the 5000gp cost of raise dead. I have to admit there there are some things in Pathfinder that I would change if I had the power, or knew the designer of the game to persuade him to change it, or if I were one of the game designers myself, but we don't and we aren't, so we'll just have to like it or lump it.
Hey, wait a minute! You do have the power! You do know the designer of the game! You are one of the designers! Why don't you do something about it? What are you doing about it?
Why not the other way round?
|
|
Why not the other way round?Why does he 'need' to do anything about it? Why cant he just leave it there for those of us who want it and just remove it in his own home game?@SKR; you've been eloquent and passionate about your dislike of the 5000gp cost of raise dead. I have to admit there there are some things in Pathfinder that I would change if I had the power, or knew the designer of the game to persuade him to change it, or if I were one of the game designers myself, but we don't and we aren't, so we'll just have to like it or lump it.
Hey, wait a minute! You do have the power! You do know the designer of the game! You are one of the designers! Why don't you do something about it? What are you doing about it?
Maybe because it's already printed in the books?
It would be retarded to have all the books reprinted for something that isn't an error.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be errata'd to have all the books reprinted for something that isn't an error.
Fixed it for you.
This is not something I would normally do, but the word you chose is offensive when used outside its correct medical context.
Anyway, yes, this would change the rules. We know.
|
|
It would be errata'd to have all the books reprinted for something that isn't an error.Fixed it for you.
This is not something I would normally do, but the word you chose is offensive when used outside its correct medical context.
Anyway, yes, this would change the rules. We know.
You didn't fix anything.
Errata is used to fix errors not subjective material.
|
|
It would be errata'd to have all the books reprinted for something that isn't an error.Fixed it for you.
This is not something I would normally do, but the word you chose is offensive when used outside its correct medical context.
Anyway, yes, this would change the rules. We know.
You didn't fix anything.
Errata is used to fix errors not subjective material.
What do they use to fix subjective material? Preferably a word which sounds a bit like the offensive term you used.
|
|
What do they use to fix subjective material? Preferably a word which sounds a bit like the offensive term you used.It would be errata'd to have all the books reprinted for something that isn't an error.Fixed it for you.
This is not something I would normally do, but the word you chose is offensive when used outside its correct medical context.
Anyway, yes, this would change the rules. We know.
You didn't fix anything.
Errata is used to fix errors not subjective material.
Actually it's called Rule 0 which costs Paizo 0. That's what you use to fix subjective material.
|
|
Actually it's called Rule 0 which costs Paizo 0. That's what you use to fix subjective material.What do they use to fix subjective material? Preferably a word which sounds a bit like the offensive term you used.It would be errata'd to have all the books reprinted for something that isn't an error.Fixed it for you.
This is not something I would normally do, but the word you chose is offensive when used outside its correct medical context.
Anyway, yes, this would change the rules. We know.
You didn't fix anything.
Errata is used to fix errors not subjective material.
Paizo have changed plenty of rules since the first printing, and they certainly didn't use rule 0 to effect that change! The printed words were changed! If SKR's position is representative of the design team's, then they can change it in the next printing if they want, at negligible cost since they have new print runs anyway.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to play the way that I play. When I was working at Interplay, the lead designer explained to me that American fantasy videogames are very different from, say, German fantasy videogames. In Germany, if your character has to cross a frozen mountain pass to get to the next quest area, you may get frostbite and lose fingers and toes, and you may even die, and the German fan base likes it that way.
You can play a game where every pound of encumbrance is important, or female characters have limited roles (like Earth history) and worse ability score mods than males, or where creating real effects with magic is difficult and most magic is just illusion, or where raising people from the dead is very rare or even impossible. It's not my style, but I'm not trying to tell you how to run your campaign.
That's from page 2 of this thread, and I think it's worth remembering. Sean isn't trying to say you should all change your campaigns, or that he's going to revise raise dead in the next printing of the core rulebook.
He's saying he likes his game a certain way, and he's defending that choice as a mechanically valid way to run the game.
|
|
Again, why would we further reduce the penalty for death beyond the huge nerf it already got from 3.5? I get removing the gold cost, but I think bringing back a risk element in exchange makes a lot of sense.I'm not big on the risk aspect. It might be 'realistic' but it's uninteresting. A fail is exactly the same as not casting the spell, and I'd assume you're putting a notation that once you fail a check you can never benefit from Raise Dead again. I think mechanics should always lead to interesting results, where this is really just an all or nothing gamble, but nothing isn't that interesting. The roll has tension, but immediately after there's no benefit from it.
Also, I don't think we've been debating this much yet as we have to keep going back and retread previous points repeatedly (not you, but several others).
I'd rather see mechanics open up opportunities to add story elements or create story decision points.
Historically, risk was "Now you can't be raised"
At which point that spell no longer works so you need to find other solutions or say goodbye.
|
|
Sending on a dangerous mission isn't a problem if death is a non-factor.
Which is my entire concern.
Death is a penalty. Without penalties the game stops being a game.
If the GM feels a player is "needed" they have the GM hand to make it so.
If the table feels a player is "needed" any good GM is going to smile, realize they have a quest option the table is bought into, and use the opportunity.
If a single player is upset his character died...well...that is why it is called a penalty.
Again, the argument seems to be getting re-framed. Currently there is a penalty. The current penalty is far less than 3.5 (same cost and level loss) or earlier editions of D&D.
Why are we looking to remove the penalty further and nanny up the game?
I noticed this earlier, but some of the people who want to keep death with penalties are very cynical.
They assume that it will instantly move to the players abusing the metagame knowledge of temporary death.
Even if they could be revived with magic, my characters would preferably stay alive and avoid dying as much as they can.
Dying hurts, and being revived is probably quite uncomfortable as well. There's a logic there for those who do RP their characters that defies meta-gaming.
|
|
But is that persuasion less easy than getting a 5k diamond?It could be more or less easy than the diamond, depending on whether I decide that the cost of Raise Dead in my campaign is one 5000 gp diamond. At this point, I'm leaning towards negotiation with a deity or powerful outsider as being the baseline, with Plane Shift just giving you an alternate (slightly more complicated) way to contact that being - in this case, the negotiation will probably be similar no matter which spell you use to open lines of communication.
And if that is allowed, then you just explained a way to get around a failed raise dead in your game.This could indeed be the last-ditch way to retrieve the dead if you're using a fail chance on Raise, an alternative to the absolute "thou shalt not play this PC" that adds to the story and requires some effort.
Again this goes back to the the "Player vs GM" argument which I reject entirely.
It isn't the GM, it is the dice. Any decent GM wants the party to win, as otherwise the game is over and the story goes untold.
But the dice scare us all, and that is a good this.
It isn't "My game" that has a penalty for raise dead. Is is every incarnation of the game since 1979.
If you are a GM who doesn't like player death, awesome. Run that setting.
But if you make that the default, that is one of those things that is an "I'm out" moment for me and that system, as everything after that will be predicated on death having no bite.
As it is, death doesn't have much bite now. And as always, if story requires a live PC, the GM has the tools to do that...not to mention being the only one at the table who knows what is really going on and if that PC is mission critical.
Although making any one PC mission critical is a whole other issue...
|
|
Also
I noticed this earlier, but some of the people who want to keep death with penalties are very cynical.
So glass house as to personal maybe?
As a player, if I know that if I do something dangerous I may not be able to come back (1e) or I may irrepairably lose a level and have to pay 5k(3.5) then I am going to play very differently than if it will only cost 7k and give me a -1 for a week.
Add to that removing all costs...that is a fairly big nerf, isn't it?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So far the best 'mechanical' reason I read for the cost is that Raise dead is a 5.25th level spell. I've not seen anyone argue against that.
I do agree, there should be some kind of cost for raise dead/ressurect.
Few take reincarnate if raise dead is an option. (per the campaign setting old age is the only reason to use reincarnate)
I hope the topic of "Death as a removable condition" is touched on in Ultimate Campaign.
When you get past level 7, you aren't a normal mortal anymore.
Why should a mortal concern like death be such a thing to dread, then?
Going to bring in a personal example and run with that.
First, I've mentioned before, that my character in Kingmaker (a wizard/psion/cerebromancer using some 3.5 rules, as we didn't know any better at the time) ran through some serious cheese, but managed to - at eleventh level - 'trivialize' death... supposedly. ()
He has four near-artifacts he created in three cities that allow him to reach back to a little over 50,000 years into the past to raise anyone he wants (though, obviously, Pharasma can still say 'no' at any time). What's more, I can grant sentience, apply templates, and other things at my will for any that I raise. Mechanically speaking, it seems like I should just get my allies killed and raise them with whatever templates we want (especially since PF doesn't do the whole level adjustment thing). What's more is I've set up a number of redundancy systems so that - even if we all die - I can come back from the dead anyway, and just raise us again.
Despite that... death has a sting. I'm not keen on dying, I'm not keen on my people dying, and it's a pain to have to go back and raise them from the dead. Either they sat out the dungeon (not fun) or they lost resources (not fun). And that's not including the choices that I made, as a player, who created the things, in the first place: I asked the GM if it would be okay if instead of instantly raising them back to life (which RAW it would), I'd be allowed to create a (temporarily) 'illusory' body (which worked better with story reasons) that took about a month to fully reform into a real one (as they ate and drank and breathed). The GM approved of this. Which means a single dispel magic or antimagic field within that period of time and poof no more person (and they need to get raised again). And Pharasma always has the right to say 'no'.
Further, if we die and go back to the 'respawn points' (as I jokingly recently called it)... the villain isn't just going to sit around and wait for us to come back. That's a real, genuine, serious risk. The guy who just got through killing us? Very likely that he'll be able to show up on our doorstep, knock down the door, and take the very artifact that allows us such wonder. Sure, I keep it very secretive (in some ways), but that's a real risk. And it's a real risk that we die again in that process. It's something we work to avoid as much as possible. If anything, we tend to be... overly cautious.
There are a lot of potential problems with trivializing death. But even if raises grow on trees like candy, some groups will be reckless and just trust in the power of the cleric to raise dead (or their power to roll a new character and get extra loot), while others will be super cautious and make the GM nearly want to pull their hair out in frustration because, 'daggum it, you're going through the dungeon backwards, and we've been on this same room for the last four sessions!'* And there are some that value the story above all and will respond appropriately to the story.
That is very much so based on the player and the style. I know GMs - some on this very boards - who go through hoops to 'nerf' Fabricate, because, 'it's broken and totally ruins the economy!' (among other reasons), and those who feel that the cost of simulacrum (how much it requires to heal the things) is trivial, but the cost of planar binding and wish are appropriate... despite the fact that I used planar binding to get wishes to sidestep the costs of simulacra in the first place (which, given the rules, I can totally do).
The point is, there are always loopholes and niggling ways out of things. Going around tamping down on those isn't necessarily bad, but it doesn't make the game better. I'm always shocked when people come up with a genuinely clever work-around for something and the boards (and internet in general) react with what amounts to, "This is an outrage!"**
Why? Because someone did it in their own game once, it somehow cheapens or ruins your own? Of course it doesn't.
On a related topic, does the fact that Sean actually doesn't use the cost of raise dead in his games bother you so very much that you have to tell him he's wrong for it? Or does the fact that ciretos prefers a hard limit mean he's wrong? No and no.
My point: you can't make over-arching blanket statements that cover all groups at all times, and it's exceedingly difficult to get overarching blanket statements that cover most groups most times.
Saying, "it is this" or "it will do that" is a bit too hardline, I think. Try, "in my group, it likely will..." or "in my group, it is normally seen as..." (or perhaps, "experience on the boards seems to indicate that it will...", and I think this discussion will be a bit more productive with less hostilities all 'round. As will surrendering the notion that you can convince the other person they're wrong with a few pithy statements.
Getting back to suggestions, however, since some prefer risks and costs, what about the possibility of more negative levels? Yeah, I know, Irontruth doesn't like them, but I'm interested in hearing alternate suggestions. This allows you to sidestep the "never back" issue while also creating a distinctive disinclination to die in the first place by requiring more spell slots.
For example, raise dead costs 5k and drops two negative levels" What about (as an optional rule) that it drops you 1+1d6 negative levels? (I'm interested in feedback.) The PF system has much 'cleaner' negative levels and they can be removed by using restoration. Intriguingly, they'd need (dependent on the rolls) roughly 5k more gold in restorations to get back on their feet. This means that the cost isn't gone, so much as it is deferred. It allows a group more options for how to handle and channel resources and allows for a pretty steep penalty. I know I wouldn't want to have an average of 4.5 levels gone until the appropriate spells are cast on me. That's more than twice as bad as two already...
Also, I'd suggest the diamond might be an optional "minimize death" cost - i.e. if it's used, the dead comes back at only two negative levels.
I'm actually liking the feel of this better the more I'm writing about it.
It still wouldn't satisfy everyone, I don't think, but it might help ameliorate in general.
* Not an actual quote, but similar to feelings expressed by a certain GM I know. Not... that I had anything to do with that.
>.>
<.<
** I wish to clarify. Some people are really well reasoned and well thought out in their responses to such things ("I wouldn't allow it in my games, but..."), but what I'm referring to here is the rather obsessive need to say, "That can't work!" and, if it can work, then say, "The rules are clearly broken and need to be fixed!" There is a problem with judging a set of rules crafted by a finite set of people with a finite amount of time when a much, much larger set of people with (collectively) a much less limited amount of time get to pick away at it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far the best 'mechanical' reason I read for the cost is that Raise dead is a 5.25th level spell. I've not seen anyone argue against that.
I do agree, there should be some kind of cost for raise dead/ressurect.
Few take reincarnate if raise dead is an option. (per the campaign setting old age is the only reason to use reincarnate)
I hope the topic of "Death as a removable condition" is touched on in Ultimate Campaign.
With all due respect to SKR, the "mechanical" argument seemed to be toward some narrow definition of "mechanical"
If part of the equation is the cost-benefit of the party letting them die, why wouldn't part of the equation be mass suicide each level then recreating the same build with new WBL equiptment on top of what you steal off the dead bodies.
Both are finanically adventageous to the party, right? Even more so if you remove the pesky 5k. But no one plays that way.
The bite of death historically has always been very harsh. This isn't arbitrary, it is mechanics. As a player I will take many risks I know can be removed with a simple remove curse/disease or restoration as a matter of course.
In the past, I would not do the same for death. Losing a level hurt. And I imagine the risk of not coming back with a failed fort save changed many, many calculations in the game.
The only sting with death now is 7 k and a minus for a week or so. Remove the 7k and the equation decision falls to a comparable level as a curse or disease risk.
That is mechanically different.